Dufour, R. (2005). On common ground: the power of professional learning communities. Bloomington: The Solution Tree.
Lists and addresses challenges, benefits and characteristics of successful professional learning communities.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/10/10/07pratt.h27.html?print=1
Article on the lack of science in the elementary classroom due to NCLB, including a rebuttal to the belief that students can "catch up" on science in middle and high school.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_pm_go_su_co/scotus_special_education
Article describes a ruling by the Supreme Court that will allow a family to be reimbursed for special education services provided by a private school.
http://louisville.edu/journal/workplace/issue5p2/singerpezone.html
Article questions the assumptions that our schools are failing and our society is sound, and suggests that schools reflect the values of the society in which they exist.
Dillon, S. (September, 17, 2007). Alabama plan brings out cry of segregation. New York Times.
Alabama residents forced from their homes in rezoning plan, and students forced out of high-performing school and into low-performing school. Educational and civil rights discussed.
Paolo Freire Freedom School in Tuscon, AZ
Public school bases its curriculum on the core standards of the Arizona Educational Standards, and its pedagogy on learning through authentic and relevant experiences.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Recent Resources
Here are the resources I've received recently. If you're looking for something and don't see it here, please let me know via email or in class on Thursday, October 11. Resources submitted without basic bibliographic information have not been included.
This article discusses parent monitoring of student class work and of their grades. Schools have implemented different phone systems that call individual homes each night and let the parents know if their child has a test or has missed a class. Parents also have the option of checking an online website to see what assignments need to be completed or how they are doing academically. Some parents really like these systems while others feel it is a way for parents to still be in control of child’s life when they should be gaining their own independence. Some teachers utilize these systems as send reminders about homework while other teachers feel that only the overachiever type student and overbearing parent will utilize the e-monitoring.
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/367175.html
Article entitled, "New Teachers, Extra Hard Task" states that there are more new teachers than ever joining the workforce in school districts that are falling behind in achievement. Politics, pros and cons are discussed.
Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS). (2007). "If Californians are Having Fewer Children, Where Are All the People Coming From?" Television advertisement. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.capsweb.com.
Propaganda advertisement that uses a child as spokesperson to focus blame for California's problems on immigration.
http://civicmissionofschools.org
Document published by Carnegie Corporation of NY that emphasizes civic education in the public school system. Stated benefits include knowledge of history, appreciation of diverse perspectives, and perpetuating democracy.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/06/39crawford.h26/html
Article entitled, "A Diminished View of Civil Rights" by James Crawford discusses the differences between equal education opportunities of the 1980s and 1990s and "closing achievement gaps" as stated in NCLB. Based on funding, education practice and student data, the author concludes that NCLB has caused an increase in the achievement gap and is moving education backward, toward a two-tier system.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond
Evaluation of NCLB from Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond. Conclusions: 1)NCLB's "noble agenda" has been lost in details and lack of funding; 2) the United States has one of the most inequitable education systems in the industrialized world; and 3) NCLB multiplies this inequity and more money will not make a difference, because "the law wastes scarce resources on a complicated test score game that appears to be narrowing the curriculum, uprooting successful programs and pushing low-achieving students out of many schools."
Schemo, D. (2007). Teachers and Rights Groups Oppose Education Measure. New York Times.
Article suggests reasons that attacks from civil rights groups and teacher unions may prevent NCLB from passing in the fall. This article surprised the reviewer by suggesting that the only reason teachers question NCLB is merit pay based on test scores.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/95168.html
Article about NCLB suggesting it should be changed but not abandoned.
www.edsource.org
Summary of Ed Source's 2007 research report, "Similar English Learner Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better?" Four key findings: 1)use of assessment data is important; 2)resources matter; 3)coherent, aligned instruction is key; 4)student achievement is a priority for principals and teachers.
Daum, M. (2007). Should Kids Be Seen? Santa Maria Times, September 15.
Editorial regarding voyeuristic and liability aspects of the television program Kid Nation.
http://www.kidsource.com/education/ten
Article focusing on research into bilingual education and the relationship between flaws in methodology and actual findings that support the efficacy of bilingual education.
http://education.astate.edu/jbeineke/articles/democracyarkansas.htm
Article entitled, "Looking for Democracy in Arkansas." Author John Beineke examined the relationship between democracy and education in three contexts: local site, district and state. Conclusion: "they all point to a lack of understanding as to how democracy should function to bring about positive change for our students."
http://www.slate.com/id/2149593/nav/tap1
Discussion of the relevance of homework. Includes ideas from three recent books on the subject: The Case Against Homework, The Homework Myth, and The Battle Over Homework.
Fasten your seatbelts-- parents lead a push to get safety harnesses mandated on school buses.
Los Angeles Times, September 15, 2007.
Article discussing the efforts of parents to influence policy in light of potential safety disaster.
http://agelesslearner.com/intros/experiential.html
Article and associated resources focusing on experiential learning.
Highlander Research and Development Center. (2007). Retrieved on September 26, 2007 from http://www.highlandercenter.org/index.html
This is the website for the organization founded by Myles Horton, coauthor of We Make the Road by Walking. The importance of this website is its mission to inform the group of people who are deemed least important in our society-- the poor. Through workshops, facilities, and communication, the center informs the public and creates an opportunity to overcome barriers and differences within society.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20789361/site/newsweek/page/0/print/1/displaymode/1098
Article commemorating the 50th anniversary of the integration of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas and the evolution of the issue since.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/19/05stempoll_web.h27.html?print=1
Education Week article discussing a new study in Kansas and Missouri that suggests parents and students don't think that math and science "upgrades" in curriculum/resources are all that urgent.
http://www.forumfoundation.org/resources/index.php?item=366&page=27
Article compares cultural beliefs/attitudes about the relationship between success and intelligence in America and China, including implications for educational effectiveness.
http://www.edsource.org/edu_sta.cfm
Standards and Curriculum Overview
http://www.louisville.edu/journal/workplace/issue5p2/singerpezone.html
Authors Alan Singer and Michael Pezone suggest that it is impossible to change schooling without changing society. Case studies from the authors' classes are used to suggest ways in which students experience the transformative value of social dialogue and the relevance of theories from Dewey, Freire and others.
Kelley, R. (2007). Dollars for scholars: a bold experiment pays parents to do the right thing. Newsweek, September 3.
Article describes Operation NYC, which provides a privately-funded incentive for low-income parents to get involved in their child's education by paying the parents $25 to attend a parent-teacher conference and $150 per month for maintaining full-time employment.
http://www.izzit.org/events/print_source.php?ID=468
Article from Indianapolis Star discusses Supreme Court hearing of Indiana's voter identification law. It is expected that the outcome will influence whose vote will be counted in the 2008 presidential election nationwide.
http://www.nytimes.com
Article entitled, "Sugar finds its way back to the school cafeteria" discusses allowing students to consume unhealthy products without providing healthy alternatives.
This article discusses parent monitoring of student class work and of their grades. Schools have implemented different phone systems that call individual homes each night and let the parents know if their child has a test or has missed a class. Parents also have the option of checking an online website to see what assignments need to be completed or how they are doing academically. Some parents really like these systems while others feel it is a way for parents to still be in control of child’s life when they should be gaining their own independence. Some teachers utilize these systems as send reminders about homework while other teachers feel that only the overachiever type student and overbearing parent will utilize the e-monitoring.
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/367175.html
Article entitled, "New Teachers, Extra Hard Task" states that there are more new teachers than ever joining the workforce in school districts that are falling behind in achievement. Politics, pros and cons are discussed.
Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS). (2007). "If Californians are Having Fewer Children, Where Are All the People Coming From?" Television advertisement. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.capsweb.com.
Propaganda advertisement that uses a child as spokesperson to focus blame for California's problems on immigration.
http://civicmissionofschools.org
Document published by Carnegie Corporation of NY that emphasizes civic education in the public school system. Stated benefits include knowledge of history, appreciation of diverse perspectives, and perpetuating democracy.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/06/39crawford.h26/html
Article entitled, "A Diminished View of Civil Rights" by James Crawford discusses the differences between equal education opportunities of the 1980s and 1990s and "closing achievement gaps" as stated in NCLB. Based on funding, education practice and student data, the author concludes that NCLB has caused an increase in the achievement gap and is moving education backward, toward a two-tier system.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond
Evaluation of NCLB from Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond. Conclusions: 1)NCLB's "noble agenda" has been lost in details and lack of funding; 2) the United States has one of the most inequitable education systems in the industrialized world; and 3) NCLB multiplies this inequity and more money will not make a difference, because "the law wastes scarce resources on a complicated test score game that appears to be narrowing the curriculum, uprooting successful programs and pushing low-achieving students out of many schools."
Schemo, D. (2007). Teachers and Rights Groups Oppose Education Measure. New York Times.
Article suggests reasons that attacks from civil rights groups and teacher unions may prevent NCLB from passing in the fall. This article surprised the reviewer by suggesting that the only reason teachers question NCLB is merit pay based on test scores.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/95168.html
Article about NCLB suggesting it should be changed but not abandoned.
www.edsource.org
Summary of Ed Source's 2007 research report, "Similar English Learner Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better?" Four key findings: 1)use of assessment data is important; 2)resources matter; 3)coherent, aligned instruction is key; 4)student achievement is a priority for principals and teachers.
Daum, M. (2007). Should Kids Be Seen? Santa Maria Times, September 15.
Editorial regarding voyeuristic and liability aspects of the television program Kid Nation.
http://www.kidsource.com/education/ten
Article focusing on research into bilingual education and the relationship between flaws in methodology and actual findings that support the efficacy of bilingual education.
http://education.astate.edu/jbeineke/articles/democracyarkansas.htm
Article entitled, "Looking for Democracy in Arkansas." Author John Beineke examined the relationship between democracy and education in three contexts: local site, district and state. Conclusion: "they all point to a lack of understanding as to how democracy should function to bring about positive change for our students."
http://www.slate.com/id/2149593/nav/tap1
Discussion of the relevance of homework. Includes ideas from three recent books on the subject: The Case Against Homework, The Homework Myth, and The Battle Over Homework.
Fasten your seatbelts-- parents lead a push to get safety harnesses mandated on school buses.
Los Angeles Times, September 15, 2007.
Article discussing the efforts of parents to influence policy in light of potential safety disaster.
http://agelesslearner.com/intros/experiential.html
Article and associated resources focusing on experiential learning.
Highlander Research and Development Center. (2007). Retrieved on September 26, 2007 from http://www.highlandercenter.org/index.html
This is the website for the organization founded by Myles Horton, coauthor of We Make the Road by Walking. The importance of this website is its mission to inform the group of people who are deemed least important in our society-- the poor. Through workshops, facilities, and communication, the center informs the public and creates an opportunity to overcome barriers and differences within society.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20789361/site/newsweek/page/0/print/1/displaymode/1098
Article commemorating the 50th anniversary of the integration of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas and the evolution of the issue since.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/19/05stempoll_web.h27.html?print=1
Education Week article discussing a new study in Kansas and Missouri that suggests parents and students don't think that math and science "upgrades" in curriculum/resources are all that urgent.
http://www.forumfoundation.org/resources/index.php?item=366&page=27
Article compares cultural beliefs/attitudes about the relationship between success and intelligence in America and China, including implications for educational effectiveness.
http://www.edsource.org/edu_sta.cfm
Standards and Curriculum Overview
http://www.louisville.edu/journal/workplace/issue5p2/singerpezone.html
Authors Alan Singer and Michael Pezone suggest that it is impossible to change schooling without changing society. Case studies from the authors' classes are used to suggest ways in which students experience the transformative value of social dialogue and the relevance of theories from Dewey, Freire and others.
Kelley, R. (2007). Dollars for scholars: a bold experiment pays parents to do the right thing. Newsweek, September 3.
Article describes Operation NYC, which provides a privately-funded incentive for low-income parents to get involved in their child's education by paying the parents $25 to attend a parent-teacher conference and $150 per month for maintaining full-time employment.
http://www.izzit.org/events/print_source.php?ID=468
Article from Indianapolis Star discusses Supreme Court hearing of Indiana's voter identification law. It is expected that the outcome will influence whose vote will be counted in the 2008 presidential election nationwide.
http://www.nytimes.com
Article entitled, "Sugar finds its way back to the school cafeteria" discusses allowing students to consume unhealthy products without providing healthy alternatives.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Action Research
Action Research
Action research is inquiry or research in the context of focused efforts to improve the quality of an organization and its performance. It typically is designed and conducted by practitioners who analyze the data to improve their own practice. Action research can be done by individuals or by teams of colleagues. The team approach is called collaborative inquiry.
Action research has the potential to generate genuine and sustained improvements in schools. It gives educators new opportunities to reflect on and assess their teaching; to explore and test new ideas, methods, and materials; to assess how effective the new approaches were; to share feedback with fellow team members; and to make decisions about which new approaches to include in the team's curriculum, instruction, and assessment plans.
SUGGESTED READING:
Bennett, C.K. (1994, Winter). Promoting teacher reflection through action research: What do teachers think? Journal of Staff Development 15(1), 34-38.
Calhoun, E.F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Classroom action research: The teacher as researcher. Journal of Reading, 33(3), 216-218.
Kelsay, K.L. (1991, Spring). When experience is the best teacher: The teacher as researcher. Action in Teacher Education, 13(1), 14-21.
May, W.T. (1993, Winter). Teachers-as-researchers or action research: What is it and what good is it for art education? Studies in Art Education, 34(2), 114-126.
McKay, J.A. (1992, Winter). Professional development through action research. Journal of Staff Development, 13(1), 18-21.
Miller, D.M., & Pine, G.J. (1990, Summer). Advancing professional inquiry for educational improvement through action research. Journal of Staff Development, 11(3), 56-61.
Sagor, R. How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Strickland, D.S. (1989, December). The teacher as researcher: Toward the extended professional. Language Arts, 65(8), 754-764.
Copyright © North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. All rights reserved.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Dewey Study Questions for Weeks 4 & 5
Hi,
Here are your study questions for the remaining chapters of Democracy and Education. Please email your answers to dpreston.learning@gmail.com by 5:00 P.D.T., Saturday, September 15.
Chapter 14
1. How does Dewey describe the relationship between subject content and student learning? Is curricular rigor/structure necessary? Is it enough? What constitutes a successful outcome?
2. Argue for or against Dewey's notion that: "Democracy cannot flourish where the chief influences in selecting subject matter of instruction are utilitarian ends narrowly conceived for the masses, and, for the higher education of the few, the traditions of a specialized cultivated class." Do you think any of these things are happening in education? If so, to what extent are they influencing the course of our democracy?
Chapter 15
3. How can play be considered beneficial to learning? Under what circumstances? What is the relationship between play and work?
4.What is the difference between education and occupational training?
5. What would Dewey say about agriculture classes in high school?
Chapter 16
6. Explain the significance of meaning.
7. If Dewey were appearing at a board meeting near you, what would he have to say about interdisciplinary education?
8. How can studying the facts of a given discipline help us understand the world around us?
Chapter 17
9. Why does logical thinking pose a challenge in the classroom where the teacher is not a content expert?
10. How does Dewey define and describe the relationship between science and social progress? Naturalism and humanism?
Chapter 18
11. Often terms like values and imagination spark debate in public education. Why are they so important in Dewey's view?
12. How/why would Dewey argue for funding a fine arts program?
Chapter 19
13. Why does Dewey suggest that out of all the "segregations of educational values" the schism between culture and utility is the most critical?
14. According to Dewey what is the main problem in a democratic society?
Chapter 20
15. Can we learn by doing?
Chapter 21
16. What are the four reasons Dewey gives for the separation of nature/man and literature/physical sciences?
17. How can educators design experiences for students that reintegrate these curricula?
Chapter 22
18. Is the United States in 2007 a custom-based society or a progressive society? Substantiate your answer with specific examples of how individualism is treated in a learning community (a school, district, or day care, e.g.).
Chapter 23 (no questions)
Chapter 24
19. What is philosophy?
Chapter 25
20. How are our ideas of what constitutes knowledge influenced by social divisions?
Chapter 26
21. How can public education provide a moral education that is equally informed by and beneficial to everyone in the community, regardless of class, race, ethnicity, gender, age, or religion?
Here are your study questions for the remaining chapters of Democracy and Education. Please email your answers to dpreston.learning@gmail.com by 5:00 P.D.T., Saturday, September 15.
Chapter 14
1. How does Dewey describe the relationship between subject content and student learning? Is curricular rigor/structure necessary? Is it enough? What constitutes a successful outcome?
2. Argue for or against Dewey's notion that: "Democracy cannot flourish where the chief influences in selecting subject matter of instruction are utilitarian ends narrowly conceived for the masses, and, for the higher education of the few, the traditions of a specialized cultivated class." Do you think any of these things are happening in education? If so, to what extent are they influencing the course of our democracy?
Chapter 15
3. How can play be considered beneficial to learning? Under what circumstances? What is the relationship between play and work?
4.What is the difference between education and occupational training?
5. What would Dewey say about agriculture classes in high school?
Chapter 16
6. Explain the significance of meaning.
7. If Dewey were appearing at a board meeting near you, what would he have to say about interdisciplinary education?
8. How can studying the facts of a given discipline help us understand the world around us?
Chapter 17
9. Why does logical thinking pose a challenge in the classroom where the teacher is not a content expert?
10. How does Dewey define and describe the relationship between science and social progress? Naturalism and humanism?
Chapter 18
11. Often terms like values and imagination spark debate in public education. Why are they so important in Dewey's view?
12. How/why would Dewey argue for funding a fine arts program?
Chapter 19
13. Why does Dewey suggest that out of all the "segregations of educational values" the schism between culture and utility is the most critical?
14. According to Dewey what is the main problem in a democratic society?
Chapter 20
15. Can we learn by doing?
Chapter 21
16. What are the four reasons Dewey gives for the separation of nature/man and literature/physical sciences?
17. How can educators design experiences for students that reintegrate these curricula?
Chapter 22
18. Is the United States in 2007 a custom-based society or a progressive society? Substantiate your answer with specific examples of how individualism is treated in a learning community (a school, district, or day care, e.g.).
Chapter 23 (no questions)
Chapter 24
19. What is philosophy?
Chapter 25
20. How are our ideas of what constitutes knowledge influenced by social divisions?
Chapter 26
21. How can public education provide a moral education that is equally informed by and beneficial to everyone in the community, regardless of class, race, ethnicity, gender, age, or religion?
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Dewey Study Questions for Week 3
I hope everyone is enjoying the long weekend! Here are some questions for us to discuss next week. Please write out your answers so that you can refer to your notes during class.
chapter 8
1. In light of Dewey's discussion of aims, how would he respond to the current demand for "outcomes-based" education? If we take away the notion of preparing for a "real life" after graduating school, what aims/ends/results are worth our consideration, and how should we provide for students' achievement in these areas?
chapter 9
2. On p.112 Dewey quotes Rousseau in suggesting that we receive education from three sources: Nature, Men and Things. Explain these elements of education, with particular attention to the governing importance of Nature. Provide an example to support your interpretation.
chapter 10
3. Why do you think Dewey focuses so much attention on the words we use to discuss education in the beginning of Chapter 10? How do we discuss education in 2007, and how do the terms we use influence how we perceive education?
4. The word discipline connotes external enforcement of desirable behavior; how does Dewey define discipline and its relationship to interest and an educational aim?
chapter 11
5. It has often been said that we learn from experience. Would Dewey agree? Why/why not? What is the role of reflection in the relationship between experience and learning?
chapter 12
6. What are the essential elements of stimulating thinking through instruction?
chapter 13
7. What difference does it make whether subject matter and method are unified? Why shouldn't I teach social studies the same way I teach biology?
8. Think of a case-study example through which you could teach students a lesson in your field. How does this experience compare with using a textbook, or using assessment to drive instruction?
9. According to Dewey, what are the attitudes that "are central in effective ways of dealing with subject matter" (p.173)? To what extent do you agree and/or use these values in your teaching?
chapter 14
10. Create a performance evaluation form that incorporates Dewey's description of the educator's task.
chapter 8
1. In light of Dewey's discussion of aims, how would he respond to the current demand for "outcomes-based" education? If we take away the notion of preparing for a "real life" after graduating school, what aims/ends/results are worth our consideration, and how should we provide for students' achievement in these areas?
chapter 9
2. On p.112 Dewey quotes Rousseau in suggesting that we receive education from three sources: Nature, Men and Things. Explain these elements of education, with particular attention to the governing importance of Nature. Provide an example to support your interpretation.
chapter 10
3. Why do you think Dewey focuses so much attention on the words we use to discuss education in the beginning of Chapter 10? How do we discuss education in 2007, and how do the terms we use influence how we perceive education?
4. The word discipline connotes external enforcement of desirable behavior; how does Dewey define discipline and its relationship to interest and an educational aim?
chapter 11
5. It has often been said that we learn from experience. Would Dewey agree? Why/why not? What is the role of reflection in the relationship between experience and learning?
chapter 12
6. What are the essential elements of stimulating thinking through instruction?
chapter 13
7. What difference does it make whether subject matter and method are unified? Why shouldn't I teach social studies the same way I teach biology?
8. Think of a case-study example through which you could teach students a lesson in your field. How does this experience compare with using a textbook, or using assessment to drive instruction?
9. According to Dewey, what are the attitudes that "are central in effective ways of dealing with subject matter" (p.173)? To what extent do you agree and/or use these values in your teaching?
chapter 14
10. Create a performance evaluation form that incorporates Dewey's description of the educator's task.
Week 2 Resources
Students presented the following resources in class on August 30:
Glaeser, E.L., Giacomo, A.M., Shleifer, A. (2007). Why Does Democracy Need Education? (Published online-- ask Alyson for URL)
This article suggests a correlation between education and democracy. An educated population is more likely to establish and support a democracy, which in turn relies on a system of education.
Parker, W.C. (2006). Public Schools are Hotbeds of Democracy. The Forum for Education and Democracy. Retrieved from: http://www.forumforeducation.org/resources/index.php?item=296&page=27.
This online article expresses the idea that public schools "possess the essential assets for cultivating democratic citizens" and offers three key strategies to help students transition from "idiocy to puberty."
Isaacson, L. (1998). Student dress codes. (Report No. ERIC Digest 117). Retrieved from: http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digest117.html
Article focuses on the arguments for and against school uniforms as an expression of democracy.
http://www.greendot.org/news/article/green_dot_to_open_10_new_college_prep_schools_in_watts
Article about Green Dot Charter Schools and an example of teachers, students and parents forming a community to challenge a traditional school district in the interest of providing a superior educational experience.
"Easing of No Child Left Behind." San Luis Obispo Tribune. August 30, 2007.
Discusses how the existing law does not provide for a realistic assessment of English language learners.
"College Entrance Exam-- Average Scores Drop to Lowest Level in 8 Years." Lompoc Record.
Discussion of the role cognitive science is taking in the high-stakes-testing era of education.
sanluisobispo.com (this is the Tribune website-- for details see Chad)
True democracy is equality among everyone. Are we moving toward oligarchy? Widening the gap of oppression?
Takaki, R. A Different Mirror. (for publication information see Laura)
This book focuses on economics as the central factor of inequality in the United States: "The Civil Rights revolution, however, was unable to correct the structural economic foundations of racial inequality." (p.409)
Glaeser, E.L., Giacomo, A.M., Shleifer, A. (2007). Why Does Democracy Need Education? (Published online-- ask Alyson for URL)
This article suggests a correlation between education and democracy. An educated population is more likely to establish and support a democracy, which in turn relies on a system of education.
Parker, W.C. (2006). Public Schools are Hotbeds of Democracy. The Forum for Education and Democracy. Retrieved from: http://www.forumforeducation.org/resources/index.php?item=296&page=27.
This online article expresses the idea that public schools "possess the essential assets for cultivating democratic citizens" and offers three key strategies to help students transition from "idiocy to puberty."
Isaacson, L. (1998). Student dress codes. (Report No. ERIC Digest 117). Retrieved from: http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digest117.html
Article focuses on the arguments for and against school uniforms as an expression of democracy.
http://www.greendot.org/news/article/green_dot_to_open_10_new_college_prep_schools_in_watts
Article about Green Dot Charter Schools and an example of teachers, students and parents forming a community to challenge a traditional school district in the interest of providing a superior educational experience.
"Easing of No Child Left Behind." San Luis Obispo Tribune. August 30, 2007.
Discusses how the existing law does not provide for a realistic assessment of English language learners.
"College Entrance Exam-- Average Scores Drop to Lowest Level in 8 Years." Lompoc Record.
Discussion of the role cognitive science is taking in the high-stakes-testing era of education.
sanluisobispo.com (this is the Tribune website-- for details see Chad)
True democracy is equality among everyone. Are we moving toward oligarchy? Widening the gap of oppression?
Takaki, R. A Different Mirror. (for publication information see Laura)
This book focuses on economics as the central factor of inequality in the United States: "The Civil Rights revolution, however, was unable to correct the structural economic foundations of racial inequality." (p.409)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Logic and Logical Fallacies
As we have discussed in class, education as a reinforcer/transmitter of culture depends upon systems of meaning such as language. Embedded in our concept of Democracy is an educated citizenry, each of whom is able to critically evaluate information. Therefore it is incumbent upon each of us to be clear as to what constitutes acceptable reasoning, as opposed to manipulation or erroneous thinking. If the conflict theorists are correct, and the social foundations of education are up for grabs by competing groups, then it stands to reason that sophists from each camp will stand and argue not necessarily to search for common truth but to advance their own agendas.With this in mind, I will be spending the first portion of next week's class (September 6) on logic, including the structure of basic syllogisms and argumentation. Please review the following list of logical fallacies (misleading or unsound arguments), adapted from California State University Northridge (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html), and consider whether any of these were used in the argument you selected. Please note that this list covers many of the most commonly used fallacies, but it is not comprehensive; if you identify a flaw in the argument you selected, but don't see the structure here, bring your question. Come to class prepared to discuss.
After you have read this list, please consider a policy statement (either formal, or something that you heard/read) that you consider absurd. See if you can catch a logical fallacy that informs the policy, and write a statement in which you rebut the argument.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.
Because an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided. But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected. For instance, you might make an evolutionary argument to the effect that the prevalence of a particular practice in existing societies is evidence that societies that failed to adopt it were weeded out by natural selection. This argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone.
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a "straw man" (see below) argument.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.
It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution. The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence capable of justifying larger costs).
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the audience will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one.
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.
At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.
Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"
Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."
Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.
Complex questions are a well established and time-honored practice in debate, although they are rarely so bald-faced as the example just given. Complex questions usually appear in cross-examination or points of information when the questioner wants the questionee to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if asked directly. For instance, one might say, "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?" Of course, the introductory clause about the majority of black Americans living in poverty may not be true (in fact, it is false), but an unwary debater might not think quickly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is questionable. This is a sneaky tactic, but debate is sometimes a sneaky business. You wouldn't want to put a question like that in your master's thesis, but it might work in a debate. But be careful -- if you try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch you, you'll look stupid. "The assumption behind your question is simply false. The majority of blacks do not live in poverty. Get your facts straight before you interrupt me again!"
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!" The problem here is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence (e.g., the President may have a negligible effect on the economy, and the real driving force is technological growth), or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time (e.g., the current economy's health is determined by the actions of previous presidents), or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause (e.g., downsizing upset a lot of voters, causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsizing).
It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist. But a correlation is usually considered acceptable supporting evidence for theories that argue for a causative link between two things. For instance, some economic theories suggest that substantially reducing the federal budget deficit should cause the economy to do better (loosely speaking), so the coincidence of deficit reductions under Clinton and the economy's relative health might be taken as evidence in favor of those economic theories. In debate rounds, what this means is that it is acceptable to demonstrate a correlation between two phenomenon and to say one caused the other if you can also come up with convincing reasons why the correlation is no accident.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc, below. The two terms can be used almost interchangeably, post hoc (as it is affectionately called) being the preferred term.
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).
Most of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy -- it is enough to point out why the sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point. Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is, using the Latin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is also important to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter (for example, "All human males have a Y chromosome" is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct).
Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit.
The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a (possibly unspecifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. Note, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival.
Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions.
For example, someone might argue that the premise, "This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine." But this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible."
The naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. Two examples are argumentum ad antiquitatem (saying something's right because it's always been done that way) and the appeal to nature (saying something's right because it's natural). In both of these fallacies, the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case. David Hume called this trying to bridge the "is-ought gap," which is a nice phrase to use in debate rounds where your opponent is committing the naturalistic fallacy.
One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds. Fortunately, debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation. For example, suppose your opponent has stated axiomatically that "whatever is natural is good." Inasmuch as this statement is an axiom rather than the conclusion of a logical proof, there can be no purely logical argument against it. But some nonetheless appropriate responses to such an absolute statement of value include: (a) questioning whether anyone -- you, your judge, or even your opponent himself -- really believes that "whatever is natural is good"; (b) stating a competing axiomatic value statement, like "whatever enhances human life is good," and forcing the judge to choose between them; and (c) pointing out logical implications of the statement "whatever is natural is good" that conflict with our most basic intuitions about right and wrong.
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as, "Racism is common," "Affirmative action would reduce racism," "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action," etc.).
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible that some psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence.
Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious.
It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one.
Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.
There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. For example, you could argue that legalizing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if we don't like those other policies, we should question whether we really buy those principles. For instance, if the proposing team argued for legalizing marijuana by saying, "individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies," the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of other drugs -- so if we don't support legalizing other drugs, then maybe we don't really believe in that principle.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"
After you have read this list, please consider a policy statement (either formal, or something that you heard/read) that you consider absurd. See if you can catch a logical fallacy that informs the policy, and write a statement in which you rebut the argument.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.
Because an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided. But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected. For instance, you might make an evolutionary argument to the effect that the prevalence of a particular practice in existing societies is evidence that societies that failed to adopt it were weeded out by natural selection. This argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone.
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a "straw man" (see below) argument.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.
It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution. The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence capable of justifying larger costs).
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the audience will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one.
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.
At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.
Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"
Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."
Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.
Complex questions are a well established and time-honored practice in debate, although they are rarely so bald-faced as the example just given. Complex questions usually appear in cross-examination or points of information when the questioner wants the questionee to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if asked directly. For instance, one might say, "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?" Of course, the introductory clause about the majority of black Americans living in poverty may not be true (in fact, it is false), but an unwary debater might not think quickly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is questionable. This is a sneaky tactic, but debate is sometimes a sneaky business. You wouldn't want to put a question like that in your master's thesis, but it might work in a debate. But be careful -- if you try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch you, you'll look stupid. "The assumption behind your question is simply false. The majority of blacks do not live in poverty. Get your facts straight before you interrupt me again!"
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!" The problem here is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence (e.g., the President may have a negligible effect on the economy, and the real driving force is technological growth), or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time (e.g., the current economy's health is determined by the actions of previous presidents), or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause (e.g., downsizing upset a lot of voters, causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsizing).
It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist. But a correlation is usually considered acceptable supporting evidence for theories that argue for a causative link between two things. For instance, some economic theories suggest that substantially reducing the federal budget deficit should cause the economy to do better (loosely speaking), so the coincidence of deficit reductions under Clinton and the economy's relative health might be taken as evidence in favor of those economic theories. In debate rounds, what this means is that it is acceptable to demonstrate a correlation between two phenomenon and to say one caused the other if you can also come up with convincing reasons why the correlation is no accident.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc, below. The two terms can be used almost interchangeably, post hoc (as it is affectionately called) being the preferred term.
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).
Most of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy -- it is enough to point out why the sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point. Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is, using the Latin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is also important to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter (for example, "All human males have a Y chromosome" is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct).
Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit.
The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a (possibly unspecifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. Note, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival.
Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions.
For example, someone might argue that the premise, "This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine." But this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible."
The naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. Two examples are argumentum ad antiquitatem (saying something's right because it's always been done that way) and the appeal to nature (saying something's right because it's natural). In both of these fallacies, the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case. David Hume called this trying to bridge the "is-ought gap," which is a nice phrase to use in debate rounds where your opponent is committing the naturalistic fallacy.
One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds. Fortunately, debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation. For example, suppose your opponent has stated axiomatically that "whatever is natural is good." Inasmuch as this statement is an axiom rather than the conclusion of a logical proof, there can be no purely logical argument against it. But some nonetheless appropriate responses to such an absolute statement of value include: (a) questioning whether anyone -- you, your judge, or even your opponent himself -- really believes that "whatever is natural is good"; (b) stating a competing axiomatic value statement, like "whatever enhances human life is good," and forcing the judge to choose between them; and (c) pointing out logical implications of the statement "whatever is natural is good" that conflict with our most basic intuitions about right and wrong.
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as, "Racism is common," "Affirmative action would reduce racism," "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action," etc.).
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible that some psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence.
Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious.
It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one.
Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.
There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. For example, you could argue that legalizing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if we don't like those other policies, we should question whether we really buy those principles. For instance, if the proposing team argued for legalizing marijuana by saying, "individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies," the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of other drugs -- so if we don't support legalizing other drugs, then maybe we don't really believe in that principle.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)